Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night

[Stalvern]

I definitely notice 30 FPS.

[Sonicx9]

I definitely notice 30 FPS.

For Bloodstained ROTN Switch is that correct?

[Stalvern]

I don't have a Switch. I'm saying that a 30 FPS frame rate is obvious when I see it.

[Sonicx9]

I don't have a Switch. I'm saying that a 30 FPS frame rate is obvious when I see it.

OK, I get you, but it worth nothing that the Switch can do 60FPS UE4 powered games such as Dragon Ball FighterZ (port from PS4/Xbox One and PC), Yoshi's Crafted World (exclusive), Travis Strikes Again: No More Heroes (timed exclusive and made with Switch first), NBA Playgrounds series day and date multi console release, and the soon to be released Samurai Shodown 2019 port, etc. But what weird is if those games can hit 60 on the said engine on the said console (Switch), then Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night should have been able to as well.

[Sonicx9]

On a related note, Igarashi did admit the Switch port turned out badly but was released anyways!: https://nintendoeverything.com/igarashi ... -released/ WTF!

It makes no sense, if you are aware of the ports problems, better delayed it late then never as it was not worth the near day and date release as the game was a hot mess on Switch. They should have done what Spyro Reignited Trilogy and Samurai Shodown 2019 Switch did come out late and make sure they were in a good state before releasing. Heck if they were doing the June release in hopes to top NPD, it was not worth it as no port made it in any top category: https://venturebeat.com/2019/07/18/june-2019-npd/, not the first time this happened as it did affect the infamous Switch port of ARK: Survival Evolved: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWo5ZIF ... u.be&t=659, must have been the fault of 505 Games as they wanted it all done by June 2019 deadline sad face.

[DrLitch]

It makes no sense, if you are aware of the ports problems, better delayed it late then never as it was not worth the near day and date release as the game was a hot mess on Switch.

It is not that bad. The port's issues are blown out of proportion. It is absolutely entirely playable. PC gaming see's this all the time and people just make do. The Switch port plays like the PC version on weak PC hardware. Frame hitches, stuttering, all the usual stuff. Yet, with relatively modest hardware (Haswell era locked CPU's, 8GB DDR3, Mid tier Kepler/Maxwell/Pascal GPU's) being more common than $5000 gaming rigs, the gaming community embraced it nonetheless.

https://store.steampowered.com/app/6928 ... the_Night/

Steam gamers liked this game and I bet at least half the reviews are from people with less than the minimum requirements to run it. If they like the game why is it that Nintendo Switch owners do not?

I think the whole Nintendo port issue is overblown. At the end of the day, the Switch was not designed to push Xbox One X or PS4 Pro level of visuals. It is a tablet that fits in my pocket. I have a GPU that is probably four times heavier and twice as long as the Switch. It is a small tablet less than half an inch thick. What sort of hardware performance do people really expect? If they want PS4 Pro level of graphics, then get a PS4 Pro. Not a tough one to figure out.

[Sonicx9]

It makes no sense, if you are aware of the ports problems, better delayed it late then never as it was not worth the near day and date release as the game was a hot mess on Switch.

It is not that bad. The port's issues are blown out of proportion. It is absolutely entirely playable. PC gaming see's this all the time and people just make do. The Switch port plays like the PC version on weak PC hardware. Frame hitches, stuttering, all the usual stuff. Yet, with relatively modest hardware (Haswell era locked CPU's, 8GB DDR3, Mid tier Kepler/Maxwell/Pascal GPU's) being more common than $5000 gaming rigs, the gaming community embraced it nonetheless.

https://store.steampowered.com/app/6928 ... the_Night/

Steam gamers liked this game and I bet at least half the reviews are from people with less than the minimum requirements to run it. If they like the game why is it that Nintendo Switch owners do not?

I think the whole Nintendo port issue is overblown. At the end of the day, the Switch was not designed to push Xbox One X or PS4 Pro level of visuals. It is a tablet that fits in my pocket. I have a GPU that is probably four times heavier and twice as long as the Switch. It is a small tablet less than half an inch thick. What sort of hardware performance do people really expect? If they want PS4 Pro level of graphics, then get a PS4 Pro. Not a tough one to figure out.

First of all Switch is closer to base PS4/Xbox One in raw specs not Pro and X and second of all the Switch does HAVE 60FPS UE4 games such as Dragon Ball FighterZ (port from PS4/Xbox One and PC), Yoshi's Crafted World (exclusive), Travis Strikes Again: No More Heroes (timed exclusive and made with Switch first), NBA Playgrounds series day and date multi console release, and the soon to be released Samurai Shodown 2019 port, etc. But what weird is if those games can hit 60 on the said engine on the said console (Switch), then Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night should have been able to as well.

[DrLitch]

First of all Switch is closer to base PS4/Xbox One in raw specs not Pro and X and second of all the Switch does HAVE 60FPS UE4 games such as Dragon Ball FighterZ (port from PS4/Xbox One and PC), Yoshi's Crafted World (exclusive), Travis Strikes Again: No More Heroes (timed exclusive and made with Switch first), NBA Playgrounds series day and date multi console release, and the soon to be released Samurai Shodown 2019 port, etc. But what weird is if those games can hit 60 on the said engine on the said console (Switch), then Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night should have been able to as well.

Certainly it depends on games. But regarding Bloodstained, specifically, a PC owner with a Haswell era i3 or i5 and GTX 670/GTX 760 GPU can expect to run the game at 1080p 60fps. This hardware is slightly more powerful than the PS4 but not by too much. With console optimization (being a dedicated platform) the PS4 will probably be as capable or slightly more capable than this hypothetical PC. Bloodstained, if it is pushing a PC with specs including GTX 760 (or similar level VGA) and a quad core i5, it is likely giving the PS1 a hard time as well. This at 1080p.

The Tegra X1 GPU on the Switch is most closely matched in the GPU world with a 1GB GTX 9800 while the CPU on the Switch would trade blows with an Intel Q6600 and a downclock. I actually had a PC build in 2009 that sported the Q6600 and the GTX 9800 and can confirm that 1080p gaming was pretty demanding for that rig. The old "can it run Crysis?" - well at 1080p/60fps/high settings, no Buenos. 720p, yes comfortably. I doubt I could run Bloodstained Ritual of the Night on hardware equivalent to it at 1080p at any playable framerate. Of course the Switch will play 1080p better than this old PC but the Tegra X1 GPU will bottleneck at 1080p. Bloodstained Ritual of the Night at 1080p 60fps? Hard to make a case for it running on the Switch like it does on the PS1/Xbox or PC.

My original point was "if the hardware cannot do it why complain"? It is not like the SNES or Genesis ports of Street Fighter 2 were Arcade Perfect yet everyone back in the day gave them 10/10 or similar. If the Switch version of Bloodstained is running at 30fps with a few frame stutter's I do not see the big deal if it is consistent with what the hardware can produce.

Breath of the Wild ran like sludge on the Wii U and had some polygon warping (look at Temple of Time when you step out the Shrine) but that did not stop it from getting critical acclaim. The Switch version is not much better come to think of it, pretty poor running title but it tops some all time gaming lists. Yet people pick on Bloodstained on the Switch. No doubt they think it is a sidescroller therefore it must be peanuts to run. While most people would say BOTW > Bloodstained in complexity of graphics, an i5/GTX 760 would be running Bloodstained @ 1080p @ 60fps while the same rig will achieve 60fps 1080p Zelda Breath of the Wild with EMULATION. Makes you think which is more complicated - Bloodstained versus BOTW.

We cannot pull titles like Witcher 3 or Hellblade and say "look it runs on the Switch and these are much more demanding than Bloodstained". It is meaningless conceptually. Witcher 3 @ 1080p 60fps? On that i5/GTX 760 PC, Witcher 3 will play at 60fps if we dial settings down to Medium. In this example, it appears that something must be wrong with Bloodstained optimization wise on the PC - Witcher 3 must be more demanding than Bloodstained. The graphics in Witcher are way more complicated one may say. Alternatively one can take it at face value. If it takes X to run Y, then that is what it must be. There is more to a game than the picture on the screen. That is just one part of it.

I know you do not like PC's and the whole smug elitist pseudonym that gets attached to it but it serves as a reference point. If X produces Y .... Of course consoles to PC's can be a bit apples to oranges but there are worse analogies. Bloodstained @ 1080p with all details intact running at 60fps is not possible unless... the game was horribly optimized for all platforms. If this is the case then there is performance left on the table. No doubt the optimization for the Switch was poor, but how poor is poor in context?

[ThePixelatedGenocide]

I wish Super Ghouls N' Ghosts was a new kickstarter game so I could watch the unholy internet meltdown.

[Sonicx9]

Certainly it depends on games. But regarding Bloodstained, specifically, a PC owner with a Haswell era i3 or i5 and GTX 670/GTX 760 GPU can expect to run the game at 1080p 60fps. This hardware is slightly more powerful than the PS4 but not by too much. With console optimization (being a dedicated platform) the PS4 will probably be as capable or slightly more capable than this hypothetical PC. Bloodstained, if it is pushing a PC with specs including GTX 760 (or similar level VGA) and a quad core i5, it is likely giving the PS1 a hard time as well. This at 1080p.

The Tegra X1 GPU on the Switch is most closely matched in the GPU world with a 1GB GTX 9800 while the CPU on the Switch would trade blows with an Intel Q6600 and a downclock. I actually had a PC build in 2009 that sported the Q6600 and the GTX 9800 and can confirm that 1080p gaming was pretty demanding for that rig. The old "can it run Crysis?" - well at 1080p/60fps/high settings, no Buenos. 720p, yes comfortably. I doubt I could run Bloodstained Ritual of the Night on hardware equivalent to it at 1080p at any playable framerate. Of course the Switch will play 1080p better than this old PC but the Tegra X1 GPU will bottleneck at 1080p. Bloodstained Ritual of the Night at 1080p 60fps? Hard to make a case for it running on the Switch like it does on the PS1/Xbox or PC.

My original point was "if the hardware cannot do it why complain"? It is not like the SNES or Genesis ports of Street Fighter 2 were Arcade Perfect yet everyone back in the day gave them 10/10 or similar. If the Switch version of Bloodstained is running at 30fps with a few frame stutter's I do not see the big deal if it is consistent with what the hardware can produce.

Breath of the Wild ran like sludge on the Wii U and had some polygon warping (look at Temple of Time when you step out the Shrine) but that did not stop it from getting critical acclaim. The Switch version is not much better come to think of it, pretty poor running title but it tops some all time gaming lists. Yet people pick on Bloodstained on the Switch. No doubt they think it is a sidescroller therefore it must be peanuts to run. While most people would say BOTW > Bloodstained in complexity of graphics, an i5/GTX 760 would be running Bloodstained @ 1080p @ 60fps while the same rig will achieve 60fps 1080p Zelda Breath of the Wild with EMULATION. Makes you think which is more complicated - Bloodstained versus BOTW.

We cannot pull titles like Witcher 3 or Hellblade and say "look it runs on the Switch and these are much more demanding than Bloodstained". It is meaningless conceptually. Witcher 3 @ 1080p 60fps? On that i5/GTX 760 PC, Witcher 3 will play at 60fps if we dial settings down to Medium. In this example, it appears that something must be wrong with Bloodstained optimization wise on the PC - Witcher 3 must be more demanding than Bloodstained. The graphics in Witcher are way more complicated one may say. Alternatively one can take it at face value. If it takes X to run Y, then that is what it must be. There is more to a game than the picture on the screen. That is just one part of it.

I know you do not like PC's and the whole smug elitist pseudonym that gets attached to it but it serves as a reference point. If X produces Y .... Of course consoles to PC's can be a bit apples to oranges but there are worse analogies. Bloodstained @ 1080p with all details intact running at 60fps is not possible unless... the game was horribly optimized for all platforms. If this is the case then there is performance left on the table. No doubt the optimization for the Switch was poor, but how poor is poor in context?

Here are some interesting tech insights of Switch and optimization if you are not aware of Mega Man 11, DRAGON BALL FighterZ and Mortal Kombat 11 all 3 require a Intel Core i5 with both Mega Man 11, DRAGON BALL FighterZ needing the newer 3470 series or better as MK 11 requires the older Intel Core i5-750 series and mind you MK11 requires more ram then Bloodstained even though Bloodstained needs a slightly more powerful Intel Core i5-4460 and GeForce GTX 760, but the differences or negligible. It just the Switch port of Bloodstained was a sloppy port and Igarashi admits it.

I wish Super Ghouls N' Ghosts was a new kickstarter game so I could watch the unholy internet meltdown.

Super Ghouls N' Ghosts slowdowns was actually a side effect of programing error BTW.